A New Hampshire mental patient’s comment about a “mass shooting” justified his conviction for criminal threatening, the state supreme court ruled.

Christopher Stewart was a patient at a community mental health center. His career counselor, Jessica McDonald, helped him enroll in classes at the University of New Hampshire at Manchester.

The university told McDonald that it had dropped Stewart from his classes and would call security if he returned to campus.

Stewart told McDonald that he would attend class anyway. McDonald advised Stewart against that, causing him to reply, “What is it going to take – me doing a mass shooting to get what I want?”

After McDonald said she would have to report his comment, Stewart said, “It was a figure of speech.”

Stewart was arrested at his rooming house, where police found a rifle and supplies in his bedroom and car. He was charged with criminal threatening.

Stewart tried to have McDonald barred from testifying at trial, but the court ruled that the state had an “essential need” to pierce the therapist-patient privilege.

He also moved to have the case dismissed because his comment was a “rhetorical question.”

The trial court disagreed and convicted him. The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the verdict on April 7.

“The keen public interest in deterring threats of mass violence countervails the public good – the promotion of mental health treatment – that the privilege advances.” Justice Donovan wrote.

“The jury could … reasonably conclude that he was reckless as to a building evacuation or other ‘serious public inconvenience,’ due to the common understanding that threatened mass shootings are taken seriously.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Gould stated that he is “troubled by the very idea of piercing privileges on ‘essential need’ grounds.”

“The legislature did not include an essential or compelling need exception in the statute creating the psychotherapist-patient privilege,” he added.